CZ Talk:Works
What are Works pages?
I think they should list the works OF the person in the article, assuming the article is about a person. Works ABOUT the person should, IMHO, be in the Bibliography pages.
I can't think what function a Works page would have in articles not about persons. What would be the "works" of Encyclopaedia Britannica? Or Mathematics? Or Onslow Beach?
Maybe the above fits best on the talk page, but since there wasn't anything here but an empty framework, I put them here to get something started. Louis F. Sander 19:51, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- I think all your points are valid. This subpage would only be used for articles about people, I assume. There would be no need to use it for article not about persons. This is the reason most subpages are optional. Chris Day (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- GMTA. Groups of people might have Works, too. I'm thinking of Monty Python. The Beatles, etc. Louis F. Sander 20:10, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- I've been listing writings by the subject of an article as primary sources in the bibliography (such as Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography). Would this belong in both places? Lot's of historical people have published letters, diaries, etc. which seem to me would be better placed in the bibliography, whereas say songs written by Paul McCartney would be an example of a "work". --Todd Coles 20:22, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Heading and format standards
Comment: I've been thinking about this in connection with the Works section of the article about Thomas L. Saaty. He is an academic who has written many books and papers. My notion of the headings in his Works section is that they should include Scholarly books, Other books, and Papers, which are the main categories of his works. This would vary for other people, of course. The works of Leonardo da Vinci might have headings for Drawings, Paintings, Inventions, and Writings. Those for Barry Manilow might show Songwriting, Recordings, Films, and Live performances.
I've also given thought to the formatting of the citations of Saaty's books, or those of any author. The "standard" formats work fine for references in a bibliography -- they were designed to be short bits of text that identify a book that is being referred to, and possibly to help you find the book. Their function is to say "I used this source."
But for a list of works, you want more than that. Possibly a brief summary of the book and its importance. Possibly the number of pages, to give an idea of the book's size. Some of that is in Saaty's Works page right now. Louis F. Sander 19:56, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
- With respect to art da Vinci's works would definitely encompass ALL his work. Have you seen the following page? CZ:Subpages#Further bibliographic material; it write "Works: a list of books, articles, artworks, etc., authored by a person" Chris Day (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Definitely we need to clarify this before too much longer. There are two issues, at least. One is that, often, written works are listed in a bibliography; this is what Richard Jensen has been doing, and it is a standard practice. Another problem is that a discography is, after all, a kind of list of works. But it is probably better to use the word "discography" simply because people know exactly what that means, and they'll be looking for it, when they see articles about musicians.
This is actually an issue that we should bring to the attention of editors, using Citizendium-Editors. Jointly they will have a lot of insight on these issues, I suspect. If you, Chris, or some other editor could describe the issues and solicit feedback, that would not only help us resolve this issue intelligently, it would raise consciousness of subpages itself (an even more important purpose). --Larry Sanger 22:18, 6 September 2007 (CDT)
Works subpage description
I was just moving the list of artworks from the main article of Pierre Molinier to a "works" subpage and noticed that the description in the light blue subpage tab says "A list of written works relating to the topic of Pierre Molinier". According CZ:Works, the works subpage can list art and other non-written works by the subject. Shouldn't we make the description a little less specific?
Perhaps more important, the phrase "works relating to the topic" sounds like a bibliography or "further reading" section. It should be specified that the works listed were created by the subject. —Eric Winesett 22:28, 17 November 2007 (CST)